Let's taboo "faith" from here out because otherwise I think we're likely to fall into a definitional argument.

Ok by me.

My next question is: what actions do you feel are justified by the probability of the naturalistic abiogensis hypothesis,

Actions? I don't need no steenkin' hypothesis to justify actions... [Sorry, just watched the movie]

To be honest, I don't see that it makes much difference to me whether life on earth arose spontaneously, or by directed panspermia, or as a once-in-a-multiverse fluke, or by the direction of some Omega running a sim. My actions are the same in any case. It is a fascinating question, though, even if it matters so little.

and why isn't the flat statement "Life on Earth came about naturally" part of that set?

You are asking why I am not justified in coming out and saying it? But I am justified. I am justified in saying flatly that life on earth came about naturally. The statement is justified by my <Censored - Taboo Word>